The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the role of the accused in the case and other circumstances before rejecting bail applications solely based on criminal antecedents, and the admissibility of disclosure statements in the context of granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.9 dated 20.01.2022 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as “the NDPS Act”) (Sections 29, 61 of the NDPS Act have been added later on) at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be 64 years old lady and it has been argued that she has been falsely implicated only on account of the fact that recovery of 1012 loose intoxicant capsules has been effected from her son-in-law Kuldeep Ram who was apprehended by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the case solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported as 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2020 in CRM-M-12051-2020 titled “Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, and an order of another Coordinate Bench dated 16.07.2021 passed in CRM-M-12997-2020 titled as “Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana” to contend that in such like cases, if a person has only been proceeded against on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, then he should be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail and that the disclosure statement of co-accused is inadmissible in evidence.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On advance notice, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State and has submitted that he is fully prepared to argue the matter and assist this Court. He has opposed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner is involved in four other cases of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that even the daughter of the petitioner has been implicated by the said Kuldeep Ram and there is no reason for Kuldeep Ram (son-in-law of the petitioner) to falsely implicate the present petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the abovesaid argument has submitted that in all the three cases, the petitioner has already been granted bail and even in the fourth case, the petitioner was awarded sentence of the period which he had already undergone. It is further submitted that apparently it is on the basis of the earlier FIRs and also the fact that recovery is from son-in-law of the petitioner, the petitioner is sought to be implicated and there is no other material against the petitioner to implicate her in the present case. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another”, reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.”

6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record.

7. The petitioner is stated to be 64 years old lady. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner and the recovery has been effected from the son-in-law of the petitioner namely Kuldeep Ram. The petitioner is sought to be implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the sai